Earlier Promotion Did Not Shield UP Judicial Officer From Compulsory Retirement, Allahabad HC Says Complaints And Vigilance Reports Could Be Considered

The petitioner, a judicial officer who had been promoted to the Higher Judicial Services in 2019, was compulsorily retired by the State on 29 November 2021 following the High Court’s recommendation dated 26 November 2021

The recommendation followed consideration by the Screening Committee, Administrative Committee and Full Court of his service record, including complaints and vigilance reports concerning his judicial work, conduct and integrity; departmental enquiries relating to some allegations were pending when the Screening Committee considered his case

The petitioner challenged the retirement, arguing, among other things, that it was punitive, that the complaints were unsubstantiated, that his promotion and favourable service record contradicted the decision, and that the Internal Committee’s later handling of a female judicial officer’s complaint undermined reliance on it

He also contended that retirement was used to avoid the pending enquiries

Fundamental Rule 56(c), as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, permits compulsory retirement when the competent authority forms the opinion that retirement is in the public interest; it is not a punishment.

Under Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, an order of compulsory retirement ordinarily carries no stigma, and judicial review is confined to cases of mala fides, no evidence or perversity; the authority must consider the entire service record, though later years may receive greater weight.

Ram Murti Yadav v. State of U.P. confirms the narrow scope of review in a judicial officer’s compulsory-retirement case and rejects the proposition that promotion necessarily washes out earlier material relevant to compulsory retirement.

Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand holds that the entire record may be considered and that even a solitary adverse integrity entry may suffice in a judicial officer’s case.

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Lal Lamror confirms that pending disciplinary proceedings raising integrity concerns may be considered in a compulsory-retirement assessment, and that a reviewing court may not substitute its view for that of the competent authority where relevant material was considered.

The Court found that the petitioner’s case had passed through the Screening Committee, Administrative Committee and Full Court, and that the decision rested on complaints, vigilance reports and other material in his service record.

The pending departmental enquiries did not make the retirement punitive: compulsory retirement involved an overall assessment of service and public interest, distinct from disciplinary proceedings.

The Court also held that the petitioner’s earlier promotion did not erase the material relevant to retention in service, and that the subsequent proceedings concerning the female officer’s complaint did not invalidate the Screening Committee’s assessment, which had been made on the material then available.

Applying the limited standard of review, the Court found no absence of evidence, perversity or other basis to interfere with the assessment approved by the Full Court.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.